Areas We Need To Improve -- Rucks.

[shasta]

The Stellenbosch trial mentioned by Shasta of only the lead players in a maul being able to carry the ball would simplify things by taking the 'truck and trailer' out of play. One refereeing decision would be made easier but would the grunts be happy?

Mystics, I think you maybe misread what I posted on that trial at Stellenbosch Uni. The proposal there was to allow pulling down the maul. I can't go along with that on safety grounds. But I suggested the above and also allowing players to come around the side of a maul to contest the ball once it has been handed back from the leading players.

Re comments on UBS in the Crusaders/NSW match yesterday:
The the Waratahs' efforts at the breakdown last night were probably the most effective I've seen from an Aussie team for quite some time. I can't recall an Australian team turning over so much opposition ball at the ruck, not in recent years anyway. If that trend continues into the internationals we could be in for better times. The stats at the end of the match were great: Territory 50/50 Possession 50/50.........too bad about the scoreboard.
But I think, to quote a press conference cliche, the Tahs will "take a lot of positives" from the match. It looks as though, if they are to win the S14, they'll have to do it at Jade Stadium. Last night proved it's within reach. The other thing it proved is that for all their attacking prowess the Crusaders are a top line defensive outfit as well.

[The EnForcer]

Rodent, I'm not with you on the truck and trailer concept....can you explain a bit more please.

Sorry mate, I wasn't clear in what I was asking. I know the truck and trailer tactic in mauls, what I didn't understand was the new tactic used to play against it? Basically you are saying you just stand back and let them set up before engaging with the hope that they will immeditaely pass the ball to the back of the half maul then you engage. I can't imagine this working very many times unless I'm on the wrong tracks.

[Rodent]

Yeah thats basically the idea. I can only really see it working at lineout time, because the jumper always wants to get the ball back immediately to avoid the maul being "sacked" before it can get moving. If teams mix it up, sometimes retreating and sometimes sacking the player immediately it will make the maul a less attractive option. However as Burgs said, it would be a massive risk inside your own 22 which is where the rolling maul is most effective anyway.

[MysticBalls]

Quite right Shasta about mauls not being taken down due to the danger (present law). About players coming in from the side to contest a maul - this could so easily be from an offside position as well due to the location of the ball within the maul- its not always at the rear of maul. It'd be so difficult for the refs to adjudge

In the Sharks/Reds game, Croft came into the side of a maul like a torpedo and brought it down, on top of himself ! Thankfully he's strong and robust and wasn't injured, but many other players would've been, and many others know better than to attempt it. He was penalised, and he was lucky it was not seen as a 'professional foul' for ten in the bin . It didn't look pretty and was downright dangerous, so your point is well taken.

The point about 'all possessions' being contested -in contrast to league- is interesting. Have you also noticed that 'a la league', the scrum feed is being spun back (or just fed) into the legs of the second rower or lock! This means that the hooker cannot strike for the ball, so this possession becomes uncontested, except for an almighty push by the forwards to run over the ball ,specialized by Argentines. As an ex-leaguey myself, I've crossed over because of uncontested namby pamby scrums in league and the boring 5 tackles then kick regime. I want to see feeds into the middle of the scrum where it can be struck at by the hooker.

Similarly, isn't the line out throw supposed to go between the two lines of forwards, so theres a contest for the ball ? So often they throw straight to their own line of forwards.
The penalty seems always to be - not throwing straight- even if its to their own line!
Many teams opt not to contest the line-out as well, and ready themselves for the next phase.

I like the variance and unpredictability of rubgy, even if its rules and mode of play are a bit more complex to understand. The first half of Crus v Tahs was Test match standard, or not far off !

[The EnForcer]

The point about 'all possessions' being contested -in contrast to league- is interesting. Have you also noticed that 'a la league', the scrum feed is being spun back (or just fed) into the legs of the second rower or lock! This means that the hooker cannot strike for the ball, so this possession becomes uncontested, except for an almighty push by the forwards to run over the ball ,specialized by Argentines. As an ex-leaguey myself, I've crossed over because of uncontested namby pamby scrums in league and the boring 5 tackles then kick regime. I want to see feeds into the middle of the scrum where it can be struck at by the hooker.

Agree My'Balls,that was pinged a couple of times by refs at the weekend but not enough. Sometimes it's so blatant it's unbelievable.....it's like the hooker is just another prop and neither challenge for the ball.

[Burgs]

Can't remember which NRL match it was this weekend but had to laugh as the Ref said to the offending Half, "Mate, that's just too obvious!" as the Half looked back at him in disbelief haha.
I don't know why they bother continuing with scrums in League, they are an embaressment to the tough buggers who used to be forwards in League. For a game that portrays themselves as the "tough men" I was quite surprised when they agreed to depower the scrums.
The three aspects of League that continue to keep me at arms length are the scrums, the "flat" passing and the grounding of the ball for a try. The rest I can accept as part of that particular code and I don't mind watching it, but to me those three things are what Rugby (regardless of Code) must maintain.
Re Lineouts; The suggestion that the ball is only called for being not being thrown in straight when it is contested I think is a fair one. It's all well and good for commentators to sit up in their warm sealed box and bag the Hookers, but it can be bloody hard to get a straight throw in adverse conditions.
If the opposition don't want to try and go for the ball then I feel it is a fair price to pay that they don't get the ball if the throw is a bit wonky.
Collapsed mauls (although at training not matches) have cost me two dislocated knee caps, so probably needless to say, I'm not a big fan of that concept!

[Rodent]

Also interesting point about the line outs. Thats one area that has gone backwards a long way this year in terms of the way it is being ref'd.

There are so many throws that are going to the outside shoulder which are not being called... Thats not even close to being down the middle and yet there are very few calls... Its no wonder that so many jumpers are getting grabbed in the air (something we should have been penalised for at almost every line out against the Stormers), as that it the only way opposition jumpers can get near the ball.